rediguana wrote:
Would love to buy it, but not prepared to pay that much of a premium just cause we live in the arse end of the world (with some fantasic landscapes mind you)
My father, now in a nursing home, in the USA, has lived in 25 different countries and travelled through over 100. Once I asked him what his favorite country was. I expected him to ask on what scale, what variables. Without hesitation he replied NZ. That's good enough for me to want to at least go there once for a month or more.
WesN wrote:
See page 26 of the manual. "The camera's viewfinder will become bright when a battery is installed, and darken when the battery is removed".
As Yohan said - normal.
Wes N.
If you think about it makes sense with the LCD overlay that changes the display of the multiple styles of focus overlays/points, etc.
Two days with 7D but no shooting due to bad weather here.
My overall conclusion is if you do not print big, set the cam at MRAW(10MP).
At MRAW,this little cam shoots about 25-29 frames at 8FPS(with extreme IV 8GB) before buffer runs out and keep shooting at about 3FPS afterwards (no black out at all).
I do not have many pictures to show but a 100% cropped (MRAW) at ISO 800(with no NR applied).
ruhikant wrote:
Two days with 7D but no shooting due to bad weather here.
My overall conclusion is if you do not print big, set the cam at MRAW(10MP).
At MRAW,this little cam shoots about 25-29 frames at 8FPS(with extreme IV 8GB) before buffer runs out and keep shooting at about 3FPS afterwards (no black out at all).
I do not have many pictures to show but a 100% cropped at ISO 800(with no NR applied).
ruhikant wrote:
My overall conclusion is if you do not print big, set the cam at MRAW(10MP).
At MRAW,this little cam shoots about 25-29 frames at 8FPS(with extreme IV 8GB) before buffer runs out and keep shooting at about 3FPS afterwards (no black out at all).
I do not have many pictures to show but a 100% cropped (MRAW) at ISO 800(with no NR applied).
Sam_S wrote:
Compared to the 40D, what kind of difference is there with noise in the 200-400 ISO range.
We'll have to wait for more formal tests but from what I've seen so far, the 7D pixel level performance at ISO 100-800 seems to be the same as on the 50D.
Which makes me wonder: for the past five years, since the 20D in 2004, Canon has increased the megapixels from 8 to 18, while ISO (at the pixel level) has not improved at all - and has become maybe worse.
Are they ever going to improve the ISO on crop cameras or one should better start saving for FF in order to get better ISO?
jorkata wrote:
We'll have to wait for more formal tests but from what I've seen so far, the 7D pixel level performance at ISO 100-800 seems to be the same as on the 50D.
Which makes me wonder: for the past five years, since the 20D in 2004, Canon has increased the megapixels from 8 to 18, while ISO at the pixel level has not improved.
So, are they ever going to improve the ISO on crop cameras or one should better start saving for FF in order to get better ISO?
I'm definitely looking forward to the FF successor to the 5Dmk2. I doesn't matter what they call it. 5Dmk3, 3D, whatever...
We may be reaching theoretical limits to ISO performance with the crop sensor form-factor. From what I understand (and I don't own one), ISO performance from 100-800 was reasonably good for the 50D, but at higher ISO it was bad? From what I have read, the 7D outperforms the 50D (no pattern noise, etc.) at higher ISO settings.
So, the net of this is that we're getting much better AF performance and overall slightly better ISO performance, with an extra 3mp available for cropping images or making slightly bigger prints? Add a few other nice features (flash control, 1080p HD video, etc.) and I think the 7D is a pretty nice overall "package."
At this writing, the video component sells itself alone for those who will use the camera for that purpose. The video forums are full of people lusting over this "imaging device." Within certain limitations, much professional video will be shot with this platform within the next year.
jorkata wrote:
...Which makes me wonder: for the past five years, since the 20D in 2004, Canon has increased the megapixels from 8 to 18, while ISO (at the pixel level) has not improved at all - and has become maybe worse.
Are they ever going to improve the ISO on crop cameras or one should better start saving for FF in order to get better ISO?
I'd have to disagree with this.
The noise at the pixel level may close, but given the large # of pixels in a camera like the 7D your not going to notice the noise as much in prints vs say a 40D.
Also, the 7D appears to have vastly improved or even eliminated the high ISO banding that can be seen in 40D and 50D files, which is a huge improvement.
jorkata wrote:
We'll have to wait for more formal tests but from what I've seen so far, the 7D pixel level performance at ISO 100-800 seems to be the same as on the 50D.
Which makes me wonder: for the past five years, since the 20D in 2004, Canon has increased the megapixels from 8 to 18, while ISO (at the pixel level) has not improved at all - and has become maybe worse.
Are they ever going to improve the ISO on crop cameras or one should better start saving for FF in order to get better ISO?
cameron12x wrote:
We may be reaching theoretical limits to ISO performance with the crop sensor form-factor.
No. Point+shoot cameras have far far smaller sensels. People have been suggesting, without evidence that we are reaching some kind of limit for years and years. Meanwhile sensor makers go on improving read noise and increasing resolution, paying no heed to these armchair theories about where a limit is. The 7D is both the densest and best for high iso crop camera ever. Business as usual. Check back in a couple of years to see if anyone's found a limit. No sign of it yet.
ruhikant wrote:
Two days with 7D but no shooting due to bad weather here.
My overall conclusion is if you do not print big, set the cam at MRAW(10MP).
At MRAW,this little cam shoots about 25-29 frames at 8FPS(with extreme IV 8GB) before buffer runs out and keep shooting at about 3FPS afterwards (no black out at all).
I do not have many pictures to show but a 100% cropped (MRAW) at ISO 800(with no NR applied).
I think, MRAW(10MP) of 7D is much cleaner than 40D(10MP) at pixel level.
I hear you. We've had seven straight days of clouds and rain in my part of upstate NY, with about two hours of sunlight in that time. Sunday should be nice though so I'm hoping to get in lots of autumn landscape shooting with nice light.
brainiac wrote:
No. Point+shoot cameras have far far smaller sensels. People have been suggesting, without evidence that we are reaching some kind of limit for years and years. Meanwhile sensor makers go on improving read noise and increasing resolution, paying no heed to these armchair theories about where a limit is. The 7D is both the densest and best for high iso crop camera ever. Business as usual. Check back in a couple of years to see if anyone's found a limit. No sign of it yet.
It would be interesting to see if Moore's Law applies to CMOS ISO performance as a function of sensor size, or if it resembles some other function.
At some point we will reach an empirical limit, but I certainly don't know what that is. Or is it all simply just marketing-driven product segmentation?
Have any studies been done to graphically illustrate ISO performance relative to sensor size over time? What specific metrics would be used in such an analysis. Just curious.
You may check the amount of pixels in Canon crop-cameras since the 10D, they've kept almost exactly the same performance per pixel since then. The only example that's not conforming to this rule is the 50D, that is worse per pixel than the 40D (and barely better downsampled either...).
The 7D is the first camera to increase BOTH pixel-quality AND resolution in a while. Expect this quality per mm2 of sensor real estate to be the norm in Canon cameras for a while.
But in this way of seeing things you sadly overlooks a few things... :-) A sensor noise performance tells you nothing about the colour-filter accuracy. If you want an example, the 5D2/50D green channel lets through twice the bandwidth of colours as compared to the 20D... :-/ This lowers colour accuracy, and gives very skewed colours (the infamous "Canon skin-tone", or hue-rotation), and gives a very colourful rendition of the [(G-R)+(G-B)] noise aka chroma noise... But the overall noise/light efficiency increases, and gives better luminosity noise figures!
The Y scale is in Ev, or "stops". And the metrics are, from top to bottom:
Dynamic range at Base ISO (FWC compared to read-noise)
Dynamic range at true ISO800, not the "ISO800" that the camera states
Base ISO signal to noise ratio at 18% of FWC true ISO200 - not camera "ISO200" - signal to noise ratio at 18% of FWC true ISO800 - not camera "ISO800" - signal to noise ratio at 18% of FWC
And lastly, signal to noise ratio at 1% of FWC, at base ISO. This is deep shadow noise at base ISO-
I see that I clipped the "%" sign in some of the legends in my diagram when copying/pasting... Sorry. 7D to be added soon, but I'm waiting for DxO to verify my "true" ISO-sensitivity measurements.
theSuede wrote:
The Y scale is in Ev, or "stops". And the metrics are, from top to bottom:
Dynamic range at Base ISO (FWC compared to read-noise)
Dynamic range at true ISO800, not the "ISO800" that the camera states
Base ISO signal to noise ratio at 18% of FWC true ISO200 - not camera "ISO200" - signal to noise ratio at 18% of FWC true ISO800 - not camera "ISO800" - signal to noise ratio at 18% of FWC
And lastly, signal to noise ratio at 1% of FWC, at base ISO. This is deep shadow noise at base ISO-
I see that I clipped the "%" sign in some of the legends in my diagram when copying/pasting... Sorry. 7D to be added soon, but I'm waiting for DxO to verify my "true" ISO-sensitivity measurements....Show more →
Although I don't quite understand all of it, this is very interesting information. Thanks for sharing.
What about ISO measurements greater than 800? That is a shooting range which many have expressed high interest in.
So, broad-brush speaking, as long as we don't see "per pixel" performance decline, the overall IQ of a given sensor form-factor (e.g. crop sensor) will continue to climb as pixel densities continue to go up?
What about the size of the individual ('sensels') pixels and their pitch? I thought I had mostly read that larger sensels achieve a better SNR than smaller ones? This could explain why FF sensor form-factors achieve higher IQ than crop sensors?
Your chart tends to confirm why I've liked my 20D and have held on to it for so long. Somewhat sadly, it will be sold on Sunday.
